TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avan, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the only issue that arises for consideration is regarding computation of capital gain in transfer of land. According to learned counsel, during the year under consideration, the assessee admitted long-term capital gain of Rs. 67,73,345 on sale of factory land and building at 141, Kottivakkam Village, Nehru Nagar, Chennai, Kancheepuram District. The assessee also claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gain in view of the investment in Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. bonds and investment in residential house property. The assessee also claimed short-term capital loss of Rs. 11,35,986 on account of extinction of goodwill. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f immovable property under the common law, the Income-tax Act does not require any registered document for transfer of immovable property. According to learned Departmental representative, the Income-tax Act, being a special enactment, for assessment of total income for levy of tax and collection thereof, it would prevail over the other enactments. Therefore, even though there is no registered document for transfer of property from the assessee to the partnership firm, it has to be treated as transfer in the hands of the partnership firm. In fact, the property was shown as asset in the accounts of the partnership firm. Therefore, the assessee became the owner on the date on which the firm was dissolved. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration of document is not an essential requirement for transfer of property under the Income-tax Act. This judgment of the apex court was not brought to the notice of the Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Rajamani and Thangarajan Industries [2000] 241 ITR 668 (Mad). This was also not considered by this Tribunal in Raja Fertilizers [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 658 (Chennai). Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Rajamani and Thangarajan Industries [2000] 241 ITR 668 (Mad) and this Tribunal's decision in Raja Fertilizers (supra) may not be applicable to the facts of the case. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the apex court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. [....